Dubstepforum.com

Thoughts?

DAVID Beckham was at the centre of a political row in France yesterday for shielding his fortune from the taxman.

Becks, 37, who has signed for Paris St Germain, will avoid France’s new 75 per cent tax on the rich by giving his £700,000-a-month wages to charity. He is limiting his contract to five months and keeping his family in London so he is not considered resident in France.

This will ensure he is exempt from French taxes on his global income. Becks — worth £200million — will also avoid a 1.5 per cent wealth tax on his and wife Victoria’s fortune, saving £1MILLION.

French MP Gerald Darmanin rapped the new tax, saying: “I’d rather get 50 per cent of a lot than 75 per cent of nothing.”

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... z2K4ORoo1C

I mean, it's essentially £700,000 a month going to help poor kids in France. A case of result over method, no?

Their tax system is way too high and will harm the country in due course.

Say what you want about Becks, there's not many people giving charity £3 million over 5 months.

I think giving all your wages to charity is a legitimate way of avoiding tax. Especially the robbery that is 75% tax.

the tax is 75%

fuck that shit

it's a better solution than becoming a Ruskie like Depardieu

but it's hard to imagine paying someone, what, 100 000 quid to play 80 minutes of soccer

rayman612 wrote:the tax is 75%

fuck that shit

That's one way to make sure the rich and successful business avoid your country at all cost.

what's the band for the 75% rate?

bloody french lol
75% is a fucking joek and im a left leaning shjdvfjhr

politcising something taht gives some kids some help
fuckign tories eat a cdigg

this tax sounds less outrageous if you know the context tho: this is the first measure hollande took when he took office and he was pretty much elected on this particular promise imo

which isn't exactly surprising after 5 years of sarkozy, whose policies have more than largely favorited the richs, while at the same time advocating austerity for lower and middle classes, trickle down economics and all that jazz (hard to compare, but the sarkozy era was a sort of french equivalent of the reagan years in the US as far as economic policies go)

rayman612 wrote:the tax is 75%

fuck that shit

the US had a top bracket tax rate of 91% in 1946, with similarly high rates lasting up until 1981, where it was 70%. then came reagan

deadly habit wrote:That's one way to make sure the rich and successful business avoid your country at all cost.

mrdii wrote:Their tax system is way too high and will harm the country in due course.

the US economy did just fine throughout those years

however, if you look at the history of income inequality, you can clearly see what effect it had. notice the increase that starts happening right in 1981?


the idea of high tax rates on the rich hurting the economy is a load of horseshit put out by said rich so that they can continue keeping wealth and prosperity to themselves


not that i actually support a 75% income tax, but it's not really as absurd as it seems

dfaultuzr wrote:this tax sounds less outrageous if you know the context tho: this is the first measure hollande took when he took office and he was pretty much elected on this particular promise imo

which isn't exactly surprising after 5 years of sarkozy, whose policies have more than largely favorited the richs, while at the same time advocating austerity for lower and middle classes, trickle down economics and all that jazz (hard to compare, but the sarkozy era was a sort of french equivalent of the reagan years in the US as far as economic policies go)

exactly

you should also know that actually, the tax wasn't even voted - it was refused by the Conseil Constitutionnel (an institution which is supposed to verify the validity of each law passed in Parliament... and which incidentally includes all our previous, still-living president, all of which are right-wing). So as of yet, the tax is non-existent, and many analysts consider it will never be proposed again by the government. there's nothing to be avoided.
also to know: it was not meant to be 75% per se, but 75% on revenues over 1,000,000€. the first million was still taxed as usual, then after that, 75%. and it was meant to be a measure that would have lasted one or two years - the idea was that lower and middle classes should not be the only ones to participate in helping the economy getting better.

now, you can agree on this or not - but i thought i'd rectify a few things as there is a lot of confusion which results from right-wing media here randomly throwing around attacks and spreading a false vision of what actually happens.

Phigure wrote:

rayman612 wrote:the tax is 75%

fuck that shit

the US had a top bracket tax rate of 91% in 1946, with similarly high rates lasting up until 1981, where it was 70%. then came reagan

deadly habit wrote:That's one way to make sure the rich and successful business avoid your country at all cost.

mrdii wrote:Their tax system is way too high and will harm the country in due course.

the US economy did just fine throughout those years

however, if you look at the history of income inequality, you can clearly see what effect it had. notice the increase that starts happening right in 1981?


the idea of high tax rates on the rich hurting the economy is a load of horseshit put out by said rich so that they can continue keeping wealth and prosperity to themselves


not that i actually support a 75% income tax, but it's not really as absurd as it seems

also this

big up the french.

i could really give a shit about income equality lol

i hope whatever fish job you end up with pays shit

rayman612 wrote:i could really give a shit about income equality lol

couldn't

Phigure wrote:i hope whatever fish job you end up with pays shit

fish n chip shop m8

southstar wrote:

rayman612 wrote:i could really give a shit about income equality lol

couldn't

why do americans do that? it doesn't make sense

This is why charitable donations are tax deductable. I'd rather that everyone just paid their taxes, but I really don't have a problem with rewarding someone for donating their entire salary to charity. That's a LOT of money he's forgoing, tax or not.

He could survive by selling his sweat, no sweat.